Many employment contracts stipulate that an employer will not dismiss an employee at a standstill. “For Cause” can be defined in the treaty. However, even if the clause is generally defined, the parties may disagree on whether the employer had good reason to dismiss the worker. Whether there was a reason to dismiss the employee is often a problem in employees` contractual disputes. As can be seen, the Massachusetts courts approved the validity and applicability of arbitration agreements prior to denials, but they have shown an admirable willingness on a case-by-case basis to invalidate or limit the scope of these agreements when powerful public interests are affected or when the definition or execution of the contract is procedurally or materially unacceptable. Earlier this year in Joulé, Inc. v. Simmons, 459 Mass. 88 (2011), the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (“SJC”) stated that a lower court erred in rejecting an employer`s request to compel an employee to settle her rights to discrimination on the basis of sex and pregnancy, while the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination (“MCAD”) dealt with her complaint. In this regard, the CJS refused to give the MCAD primary jurisdiction over claims and decided that the employer had the right to continue the litigation arbitration process on the assumption that the arbitration agreement was valid.
Lewis` decision in 2018, a clear victory for employers, who consider the class and collective waiver provisions in the labor arbitration process to be enforceable under the FAA, despite the challenges under the National Labor Relations Act. In early 2019, employers who use or plan to settle labour disputes will face new challenges, not only by the courts and legislators, but also by the court of public opinion.